Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cmcl2!adm!xadmx!rbj@dsys.ncsl.nist.gov
From: rbj@dsys.ncsl.nist.gov (Root Boy Jim)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: What kinds of things would you want in the GNU OS?
Message-ID: <19849@adm.BRL.MIL>
Date: 2 Jun 89 21:53:26 GMT
Sender: news@adm.BRL.MIL
Lines: 29

? From: Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net>

? In article <19835@adm.BRL.MIL>, rbj@dsys.ncsl.nist.gov (Root Boy Jim) writes:
? > BTW, I agree with you that threads need not duplicate the stack.
? > It doesn't seem to make much sense what happens when a thread
? > returns/exits. However, I would rather see the kernel/library
? > push the address of thread_exit on the stack. Eliminates one argument.

? What if you want to do more stuff in your cleanup routine? This routine
? would also be called if the thread called exit().

Then have your thread do it explicitly, just like main does. Or if you
insist, have thread_exit honor exit callbacks, similar to how on_exit
does. Better yet, push the address of thread_die_horribly() on the stack
and require that the thread exits explicitly. Require that main() exit
explicitly by hacking startup to dump core on return from main.

? Actually, I'd like to be able to pass more stuff to thread(), such as maybe
? a mask of resources to be shared...?

Share everything that fork does. Close/release what you don't want.

? Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation.

? Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180.
? Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.

	Root Boy Jim is what I am
	Are you what you are or what?